Contraception Misconception

Jun 21, 2016

Contrary to the narrative that has been so adamantly pushed forward by the Obama administration, it seems that Condom Distribution Programs among teens are not as effective as originally thought. Thanks to the benefits of new research based in longitudinal data, two Notre Dame economists published a study which, “found that school districts that instituted condom distribution programs in the early 1990s saw significant increases in the teen-fertility rate.”

The study itself included a number of large, urban school districts, all of whom saw rises in teen-fertility rate of ten to twelve percent when said curriculum was implemented. This is, of course, exactly what the programs themselves were hoping to prevent. Importantly, the new research relied upon data gathered over an extended period of time, following children as they moved throughout the schooling process. While longitudinal research such as this study will always take more time to compile and analyze, it paints a much clearer picture of what curriculum is, in fact, valuable. This data has the ability to expose much of the current consensus as sensationalist, politically motivated, and perhaps even biased.

The study appears to show an entirely different understanding of Sex Education than the so-called “evidence based” approach that President Obama’s administration has been behind since its 2009 list of approved programs. Of the forty-four methods currently on the list of acceptable Sex Education programs, only two include Sexual Risk Avoidance (SRA) education. Sexual Risk Avoidance, although in the past it has been heavily criticized by government officials, focuses on the promotion of abstinence as a major portion of the Sex Education process. Insofar as government programs are able to effectively educate youth on such delicate topics, SRA curriculum is the most tolerable. This methodology deserves to be looked at as a viable alternative to the current curriculum, considering the obvious failures shown in a growing number of recent studies.

As new research continues to shed further light into teen culture throughout the United States, it is important to remember how crucial it is to rely on robust, longitudinal data when it comes to Sex Education, as this recent study has done. By taking an honest look at the trends that are developing overtime with teens, we can more accurately assess the real consequences of policies that promote free contraceptives to children.

What new research shows, and what government officials need to take notice of, is the glaring ineffectiveness of non-SRA methodologies. Policies should endeavor to reflect sound evidence in determining what is best for children, and it would appear that Condom Distribution Programs lack heavily in that respect.

By Cameron Dominy

Cameron Dominy is a 2016 Summer Intern at The Virginia Family Foundation, and the Governor of the South Carolina Student Legislature.

Since the radical Left has tried and failed year after year in the legislature to silence counselors from sharing with clients the self-evident realities of human identity and sexuality, the current administration is now eyeing an alternative path to accomplish this censorship: administrative regulations. The state Boards of Counseling, Psychology, and Social Work have now begun the process of adopting Guidance Documents and full-scale regulations to stifle licensed professionals’ free speech rights, with the direct consequence of denying patients their basic right to direct the objectives of the counseling they seek.

ACTION: Click HERE to enter a comment on the townhall.gov website, and tell the VA Board of Counseling not to punish licensed counselors for helping patients overcome their unwanted sexual feelings by affirming biological realities concerning male and female. (Click on “Enter a comment”)

To learn more about the context of the issue, read our blogs about it here and here.

The public comment period to weigh in on this ideologically-driven movement officially begins today and will end on 4/17/19. The Board of Counseling members need to hear from the public about why this action would be wrong, dangerous, and unconstitutional.

The health regulatory boards have labeled the practice of helping someone overcome unwanted same-sex attractions or gender dysphoria as “conversion therapy,” when in reality it should more rightly be characterized as “Biological Affirmation Counseling.” Notice how extreme the Board’s definition of “conversion therapy” is in its draft Guidance Document and how much of an obvious double standard it sets up:

“For the purposes of this guidance ‘conversion therapy’ … is defined as any practice or treatment that seeks to change an individual's sexual orientation or gender identity, including efforts to change behaviors or gender expressions or to eliminate or reduce sexual or romantic attractions or feelings toward individuals of any gender.”

BUT THEN, the Board continues…

“’Conversion therapy’ does not include counseling that provides assistance to a person undergoing gender transition or counseling that provides acceptance, support, and understanding of a person or facilitates a person's coping, social support, and identity exploration and development, including sexual-orientation-neutral interventions to prevent or address unlawful conduct or unsafe sexual practices, as long as such counseling does not seek to change an individual's sexual orientation or gender identity in any direction.”

In other words, counselors are ALLOWED to help a minor client to explore and facilitate same-sex feelings, attractions and behaviors, or even to “change” their sex altogether, but they are strictly PROHIBITED from helping a minor client struggling with unwanted same-sex attractions from developing a natural and Biblical sexual ethic, or aiding a child dealing with gender dysphoria in learning to embrace his or her biological status as either male or female. So, children can change in one direction, but not the other.

The Board’s “guidance” to counselors is clear and simple: If you hold to the natural, biological, historical and/or Biblical understanding of human sexuality, be prepared to lose your professional license.

Parental Rights: Several Big Wins and a Few Near Wins [2019 General Assembly Recap Part 2]

A Tragic Loss for Life and Family

A Tragic Loss for Life and Family

On Wednesday, by a vote of 63-36 the House of Delegates, unfortunately, agreed to the Senate’s nominally-amended version of HB 1979 (D-48, Sullivan). (The Senate passed it 28-12.) The bill will now make its way to the Governor’s desk for his signature. Make no mistake, this legislation will bring a dramatic and harmful policy shift concerning the creation and treatment of human life, the rights of children, the basis for parenthood, the significance of marriage, and the dynamics of the parent-child relationship. Despite the numerous victories so far this session, the passage of HB 1979 is of profound damage to the family.

Some have called this bill "pro-life" because it will now allow single people and same-sex couples to contract with a surrogate mother to implant one or more of the one million "snowflake babies," which have been created in labs and are currently frozen. But those same legislators completely disregarded the obvious incentives this bill creates, which will only lead to countless more human embryos being created in labs, frozen, and left to languish. While we, too, want existing human embryos to have the opportunity to fully develop, this bill will only ensure this problem is multiplied.

Another reason this bill cannot be pro-life is because it allows surrogacy contracts to include forced abortions, including “selective reductions,” which is the horrific practice of killing some of the babies in the womb, while leaving one or more alive. Some contracts also allow the intended parents to be able to require abortion of the child(ren) if the child appears to have a disability, or simply if they change their minds about wanting the child. This is commonplace in surrogacy contracts, and current Virginia law does not prohibit these types of agreements. This bill will greatly expand the number of surrogacy contracts, but without doing anything to protect against forced abortions at the demands of the “intended parents.”

For the first time, this bill would sever the biological connection between a child and his or her parents before the child is ever born. Current law requires at least one parent to be a genetic parent of the child who is being intentionally created through assisted conception. This bill allows for there to be no genetic connection at all, replacing the legal basis for parenthood with a mere contract among willing adults, which effectively flips the current custodial paradigm of “best interests of the child” to one of merely the desires and intentions of any adult.

Tragically, this bill, for the first time, allows for a child to be intentionally and permanently deprived of either a mother or a father before they are even born, and for the entirety of their life. (The bill removed all the references to “father”, “mother”, “husband” and “wife”.) Yet every person innately understands the value of having both a mother and father, and those who grow up without either a mother or a father tend to have a deep longing to have and to know them. Since the bill now allows single and non-married persons to contract with someone to produce a child for them through surrogacy simply because they want one, this Commonwealth has just declared that when it comes to bringing children into the world, married homes are no more preferred than single-parent homes.

While the outcome is incredibly disappointing, we witnessed throughout the process incredible courage on the part of some legislators who did not succumb to the outside pressures to support this bill. We want to especially thank Delegate Dave LaRock (R-33, Hamilton) for his commitment to protecting unborn life and speaking on the House floor in opposition to HB 1979 several times, including his great floor speech yesterday. Watch it HERE.

HB 1979 is a clear illustration of the lengths that the Left (and now, even some on the Right) will go to in order to redefine the family by stripping away the biological connections between parents and children and to protect the barbaric practice of selective reduction and abortion.

Please pray for us as we continue to fight against these dangerous anti-life and anti-family policies.